Alcoholism, clinical and experimental research · 2014
In with the old and out with the new? A comparison of the old and new binge drinking standards.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Corbin William R, Zalewski Suzanne, Leeman Robert F, Toll Benjamin A, Fucito Lisa M, O'Malley Stephanie S
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: There is consistent evidence that the binge drinking standard of 5+ drinks per drinking occasion for men (4+ for women) is associated with risk for negative consequences. Yet, many have questioned the adequacy of this measure as an index of intoxication (e.g., a blood alcohol concentration [BAC] of 0.08 g%). In response to these concerns, a National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism task force recommended adding a time qualifier of 2 hours to this criterion. Although conceptually appealing, there has been little effort to determine whether this new measure better captures drinking that leads to negative consequences.
METHODS: This study examined the new binge standard (2-hour period) and old binge standard (no time qualifier) in relation to frequency of drinking to an estimated BAC of 0.08 g% and the experience of negative drinking consequences. These relations were examined within both a social drinking sample of adults (N = 200) and a sample of heavy-drinking young adults (N = 168) participating in a randomized clinical trial for drinking reduction.
RESULTS: Contrary to the purpose of adding a time qualifier, the new binge measure was not more strongly correlated with drinking to an estimated BAC of 0.08 g% relative to the old binge measure. In addition, when both measures were entered simultaneously into a regression model, only the old binge measure accounted for significant variance in negative drinking consequences.
CONCLUSIONS: These empirically based results suggest that the original binge standard without a time qualifier may be preferable to the 2-hour standard as a marker for risk. The findings also suggest that further efforts are needed to identify a brief measure that effectively captures drinking to intoxication and related risk for negative consequences.
METHODS: This study examined the new binge standard (2-hour period) and old binge standard (no time qualifier) in relation to frequency of drinking to an estimated BAC of 0.08 g% and the experience of negative drinking consequences. These relations were examined within both a social drinking sample of adults (N = 200) and a sample of heavy-drinking young adults (N = 168) participating in a randomized clinical trial for drinking reduction.
RESULTS: Contrary to the purpose of adding a time qualifier, the new binge measure was not more strongly correlated with drinking to an estimated BAC of 0.08 g% relative to the old binge measure. In addition, when both measures were entered simultaneously into a regression model, only the old binge measure accounted for significant variance in negative drinking consequences.
CONCLUSIONS: These empirically based results suggest that the original binge standard without a time qualifier may be preferable to the 2-hour standard as a marker for risk. The findings also suggest that further efforts are needed to identify a brief measure that effectively captures drinking to intoxication and related risk for negative consequences.